ArticleRestorative neurology and neuroscience2021
Effect of conventional transcranial direct current stimulation devices and electrode sizes on motor cortical excitability of the quadriceps muscle.
Article in Restorative neurology and neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of neuromodulation and rehabilitation approaches on pain relief in patients with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Pooled it
- Number of conditioning trials, but not stimulus intensity, influences operant conditioning of brain responses after total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Trial
- Exploring the Prospects of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) as a Therapeutic Intervention for Post-Stroke Motor Recovery: A Narrative Review.Brain sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a growing concern among the scientific community that the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are highly variable across studies. The use of different tDCS devices and electrode sizes may contribute to this variability; however, this issue has not been verified experimentally.
objectiveTo evaluate the effects of tDCS device and electrode size on quadriceps motor cortical excitability.
methodsThe effect of tDCS device and electrode size on quadriceps motor cortical excitability was quantified across a range of TMS intensities using a novel evoked torque approach that has been previously shown to be highly reliable. In experiment 1, anodal tDCS-induced excitability changes were measured in twenty individuals using two devices (Empi and Soterix) on two separate days. In experiment 2, anodal tDCS-induced excitability changes were measured in thirty individuals divided into three groups based on the electrode size. A novel Bayesian approach was used in addition to the classical hypothesis testing during data analyses.
resultsThere were no significant main or interaction effects, indicating that cortical excitability did not differ between different tDCS devices or electrode sizes. The lack of pre-post time effect in both experiments indicated that cortical excitability was minimally affected by anodal tDCS. Bayesian analyses indicated that the null model was more favored than the main or the interaction effects model.
conclusionsMotor cortical excitability was not altered by anodal tDCS and did not differ by devices or electrode sizes used in the study. Future studies should examine if behavioral outcomes are different based on tDCS device or electrode size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.